Rescinding membership in Free State Project

[Friday]

me for being a greasy dago WOP, or IRISH

Speaking for the Limey-Dago race, we are impressed with and saddened by your racial purity.

The left half of my face is black, while the right half is white.  The left half of *your* face is white, while the right half is black. Clearly, you are inferior, and must be destoryed. 

[FrankChodorov]

To whom/what are you referring?

I openly advocate taxation and I am still in the FSP (barely)...

[Braddogg]

The left half of my face is black, while the right half is white.  The left half of *your* face is white, while the right half is black. Clearly, you are inferior, and must be destoryed. 

[Caleb]

Caleb,

To whom/what are you referring?

I'm referring to the fact that the the War on Iraq is *not* a defensive war, and therefore does not qualify for self-defense.  Those who advocate for it, therefore, are in violation of the FSP prohibition of promoting violence.

I don't want to name names in a public forum.  I just think it would be cool if the FSP clarified publicly that to be part of the FSP, by definition, one must be against the Iraq war.

[Caleb]

I openly advocate taxation and I am still in the FSP (barely)...

Good point, Frank! 

Promotion of taxation is technically promotion of violence ...

[FrankChodorov]

I openly advocate taxation and I am still in the FSP (barely)...

Good point, Frank! 

Promotion of taxation is technically promotion of violence ...

yeah except one small little problem - what I argue is that requiring the sharing of economic rent is actually preventing a theft so it is self-defense and therefore just.

[Friday]

I just think it would be cool if the FSP clarified publicly that to be part of the FSP, by definition, one must be against the Iraq war.

I think you know by now that the FSP, by definition, doesn't take a stand on any issue.  I, personally, am against the Iraq War (#1 and #2).  Some people who call themselves libertarians seem to sincerely believe that the war is justifiable. I honestly don't understand their reasoning.

[Rocketman]

I just think it would be cool if the FSP clarified publicly that to be part of the FSP, by definition, one must be against the Iraq war.

Well, despite my total disdain for the pro-war position, I'm glad they're here to work on state and local freedom issues.  The FSP is just a plan to get people here -- we don't all have to be chums, do we?

At least this pro-war vs. anti-war tension makes it clear we aren't some kind of cult.   

[Caleb]

But the FSP *does* take a stand on the promotion of bigotry, racial hatred, or violence, which is what the Iraq War is.  To exempt the Iraq war ... well, then I think you have to exempt Cropper's bigotry too.  After all, it may seem like bigotry to you ... but to cropper his bigoted views are just non-rhyming poetry. 

It boils down to this:  When you say "Anyone who promotes violence, racial hatred, or bigotry is not welcome" is that an objective or a subjective standard?

If it's subjective, then it's meaningless.  Because anyone can say that their views do not qualify under the clause. 

But if it's objective, then the FSP must determine what meets the definition of "promoting violence, racial hatred, or bigotry".  And I would argue that promoting a pre-emptive war is, by definition promoting violence.  The FSP can disagree (hey, we're all entitled to be illogical) But it can't say "We don't take a position on this" because by doing so they move it from an objective to a subjective standard, and therefore it's meaningless.

[Caleb]

Well, despite my total disdain for the pro-war position, I'm glad they're here to work on state and local freedom issues

If they are pro-war, you have to wonder how pro-liberty they actually are.  You may find yourself on the opposite side of the "state and local issues" too.

[Quantrill]

I openly advocate taxation and I am still in the FSP (barely)...

May I ask why you are "barely" in the FSP?  Obviously noone seems to agree 100% on every issue, but I'm pretty sure most of us believe in lower taxes, smaller government and more individual freedom.  If you support these things then I believe you are wholly in the FSP.  We can iron out the -ism details later!    

[Quantrill]

If they are pro-war, you have to wonder how pro-liberty they actually are.  You may find yourself on the opposite side of the "state and local issues" too.

I'm not sure of this.  I don't really think I'm pro-war, just indifferent.  Some people believe we shouldn't attack an entire nation because of a few "extremists" (how often have Libertarians been called extremists?)  Other people believe we should attack an entire nation because of said extremists.  And others still, (myself included) are mostly indifferent.  Is it good policy to wage this war?  In my opinion, no.  But withdrawing our troops will not reduce the risk of another attack on American soil.  In all likelihood, it will increase the probability.  So what do we do?  Well, I'm smart enough to realize that I don't know the answer, so I stay out of it.  That doesn't mean I won't support small government candidates during the next election. 

It's my opinion that most areas where "we" disagree are global issues, not local.  As far as the U.S. is concerned we are for mostly the same things.  But the Iraq war (Iran, N. Korea, whoever's next on the list), illegal "immigration" (since when are they not illegal aliens?), and completely unrestricted free trade amongst every country are all issues that we can't agree on.  One reason is because every nation is different, as it should be.  Did we have any reason to get involved in Hitler's stupid quest for world domination?  Honestly, I'm not sure.  Do we prevent another country from acquiring the latest warfare technology?  Why is that ok?  Do we wait until a country invades another before getting involved?  Is that our business?  Do we wait until another country is powerful enough to attack us here?  Why do we wait that long?

These are questions that I don't have the answer to.  I'm definitely ready to hear the thoughts of others on these subjects.  Whether we agree or not on these issues should have little to no bearing on whether we believe in the 1st Amendment right to free speech, 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, etc...

[Caleb]

It's my opinion that most areas where "we" disagree are global issues, not local.  As far as the U.S. is concerned we are for mostly the same things.  But the Iraq war (Iran, N. Korea, whoever's next on the list), illegal "immigration" (since when are they not illegal aliens?), and completely unrestricted free trade amongst every country are all issues that we can't agree on.

Well, they become local issues.  For instance, because of the war, I won't be paying income taxes.  Is it ok with you for them to throw me in jail?

I might hire an "illegal" immigrant.  Are you ok with this, or would you want to punish me?

I might want to have peaceful trade relationships with Iran, North Korea, or God forbid, even Cuba.  Are you ok with this?

Do you see how it comes down to local issues real quick?

---

modified to add quotation marks around "illegal".  It's obvious that there is no such thing as an illegal person.  People can't be against the law.  The law can only exist to serve people, not vice-versa.

[Rocketman]

his bigoted views are just non-rhyming poetry. 

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know there's no such thing as non-rhyming poetry.   

It boils down to this:  When you say "Anyone who promotes violence, racial hatred, or bigotry is not welcome" is that an objective or a subjective standard?

If it's subjective, then it's meaningless.  Because anyone can say that their views do not qualify under the clause. 

But if it's objective, then the FSP must determine what meets the definition of "promoting violence, racial hatred, or bigotry".  And I would argue that promoting a pre-emptive war is, by definition promoting violence.  The FSP can disagree (hey, we're all entitled to be illogical) But it can't say "We don't take a position on this" because by doing so they move it from an objective to a subjective standard, and therefore it's meaningless.

Subjectivity plays a part in almost any evaluation, and does not necessarily render the standard meaningless.  Objective truth is frequently inaccessible.

The common sense "racial bigotry" standard is a bit more cut and dry than the "promoting violence" standard.  Talk about nuking ragheads and you're out; advocate an aggressive strategy to liberate oppressed foreigners by toppling tyrants and you're ostensibly within the standard.

Ostensibly...

mvpel and others sincerely believe their pro-war position is pro-liberty, and despite firmly and passionately advocating the polar opposite, I have to respect any sincere person who moves in NH and works to advance the cause of liberty.

I also get pretty annoyed with pro-lifers sometimes, Caleb, but I don't try to push them out of the FSP.   

[Quantrill]

Well, they become local issues.  For instance, because of the war, I won't be paying income taxes.  Is it ok with you for them to throw me in jail?

I might hire an "illegal" immigrant.  Are you ok with this, or would you want to punish me?

I might want to have peaceful trade relationships with Iran, North Korea, or God forbid, even Cuba.  Are you ok with this?

Do you see how it comes down to local issues real quick?



modified to add quotation marks around "illegal".  It's obvious that there is no such thing as an illegal person.  People can't be against the law.  The law can only exist to serve people, not vice-versa.

I understand your points and that is precisely the dilemma we are faced with.  Is there only one way for everyone to live?  Do "we" (Free Staters) have to agree on every aspect of how the entire world should be run in order for us to get along or promote liberty?  Or do we come to the realization that we must compromise and work within the system as best we can (work with the ACLU on civil liberty issues, not so much on gun rights issues/ work with the Dems. against REAL ID , not so much the public school system etc...)

As far as people being illegal, you're right.  But non-U.S. citizens in this country without "permission" are indeed illegals.  Maybe you (maybe you and me) could work to get this changed, but not only are they breaking laws, they are breaking  constitutional laws.  And that is something we should all agree on.  Pare down the government to what it is "allowed" to do (i.e. scrap the ATF and Dept. of Education), and then if there are other issues, you can work to get the changes you desire.

To answer your questions:  I don't think it's right for them to throw you in jail for not paying income tax, nor would I alert the authorities to your not paying the income tax, but I wouldn't fault the government for arresting you.  Instead of refusing to pay the tax, why don't you raise the consciousness of the people around you.  Do protests like Dada, talk to your representatives, run for office.  If you want to violate the law, great.  Just don't complain when you get caught.  I agree it sucks.  I've heard people say that paying the income tax is not mandatory.  I would love to have this info!

I would definitely not be ok with you hiring someone in this country illegally.  I'm not an anarchist and one of the purposes of government is to protect our borders.  * Although, maybe not.  Everyone in a position of power is so corrupt that I don't know which Supreme Court opinions  are legit and which aren't.  So maybe locking down the border is not the same as protecting your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Does the Constitution protect the rights of non-U.S. citizens to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?  Maybe that's up for debate as well.  Although I must say, the thought of foreign entities buying U.S. property is ridiculous to me (companies or individuals).  Should a non-U.S. citizen be allowed to partake in "our" social services (especially when many of those services would be eliminated in a Libertarian society)?  Can they be a part of those social services until PORCs eliminate said services?

If YOU want to have peaceful trade with whomever - Hmm.  I don't see any reason why you couldn't.  Though I may be inclined to boycott/shun you!    And that would indeed be my constitutional right.  Free markets and whatnot...  As far as the U.S. and embargos/trade restrictions:  blah.  Probably not necessary but then again neither is sending billions of dollars in "aid" to other countries.  I say quit spending money overseas before you worry about peaceful trade with Cuba...

Is there a point anywhere to my quasi-incoherent rantings?  We don't agree on everything.  Let's work together on the things we do.  There are far too few of us to spend our time bickering...